"We may have achieved libel reform in England & Wales, but the battle to modernise libel law continues elsewhere in the UK. Can you help us?
As you may have read, the Northern Ireland Executive has not yet extended the Defamation Act 2013 into Northern Irish law. In fact, former finance minister Sammy Wilson MLA said he had "no plans to review the law on defamation in Northern Ireland" and told his Stormont colleagues that the threat to free speech was "just a lot of nonsense".
"The news that Finance Minister Simon Hamilton has asked the Northern Ireland Law Commission to examine the Stormont Defamation Bill is good news for Ulster's publishers, broadcasters, bloggers and academics.While the rest of the UK will see the new Defamation Act 2013 coming into force on January 2, 2014,Northern Ireland libel law remains rooted in legislation that was formulated well before the internetand social media became part of our everyday lives.
For those of us who are keen to see this relatively obscure, but fundamentally important area of law updated as soon as possible, Mr Hamilton's intervention could be the best way of achieving at least a measure of reform. After all, if the NI Law Commission advocates reforms, it is hard to see how those reforms could be different from the rest of the UK.
As a solicitor who advises publishers and broadcasters in Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, I can hear some people already thinking: "Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?""To read in full click here.
The News Letter backs reform of NI libel laws. Whatever your view, you can respond to survey on bill by end of today http://t.co/8u9Ua5hpJv
— Sam McBride (@SJAMcBride) November 28, 2013
"I certainly am interested. I have to say I am bemused at people who want to help their chums in the media out. I’ll stand up for ordinary people who are wronged by the media. The suggestion – the absurd suggestion – by some that this restricts in some way the media from doing their job and is an infringement of rights...there is a defence against any defamation case, a total defence against a defamation case, and that is truth.
So if the media are telling the truth, what are they worried about? Why would they be concerned about this if they intended to write or to publish or to broadcast the truth? That is the defence that they could take and I think the withdrawal of that kind of legislation [in England and Wales] allows a recklessness that we’ve seen creeping in to broadcasting and media behaviour.
The News Letter also reported that Mr Robinson, who has himself threatened to sue for libel in the past, said that it was not difficult to sue but the “costs are prohibitive”.Original News Lertter report here. Previous posts on the veto of the Westminster libel reform by Stormont here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.
"Just for discussing this subject [child abuse] a couple of years ago, my magazine Vanity Fair was sued by Mr Polanski from Paris in London. Not in America but where he thought the jurisdiction would be easier on him. He didn't even have to appear in person because he thought that might be risky. He made a video deposition. We claimed he had no reputation to defend. He walked away with a lot of our money on a libel judgement saying this couldn't be discussed."Watch original video here from 4 minutes 50 seconds. Christopher Hitchens had previously explained what happened in a 2009 article for Slate Magazine. He said of the 2005 libel case:
"In July 2005, Polanski took advantage of the notorious British libel laws to sue my colleagues at Vanity Fair and collect damages for his hurt feelings. It doesn't matter much what the supposed complaint was—he had allegedly propositioned a Scandinavian model while purring about making her the next Sharon Tate—so much as it mattered that Polanski would dare to sue on a question of his own moral standing and reputation. "I don't think," he was quoted as saying of the allegation, "you could find a man who could behave in such a way." Say what? Anxious for his thin skin, the British courts did not even put Polanski to the trouble of appearing in a country where he has never lived. They allowed him to pout his outraged susceptibilities by video link before heaping him with fresh money. At this point, I began to feel a cold spot forming in my own heart. And then, just last December, while still on the lam, Polanski filed from abroad to have the original Los Angeles child-rape case, in which he had pleaded guilty, dismissed without further ado.
"Unfortunately, the newspaper had failed to show similar concern about the fact that Northern Ireland citizens have for many years been treated differently from their counterparts in the UK in terms of access to the libel Courts. Unlike the position in England, lawyers in Northern Ireland have in the past not been allowed to act on a "no win no fee basis", nor have After the Event (ATE) insurance premiums been recoverable, thereby making it even more difficult for the ordinary man on the street to obtain access to justice.